Part of the problem is that the negative impact of patent trolling doesn't yet register with the general public as an issue comparable to the frivolous med mal suits that necessitated tort reform. We need Michael Moore to produce a documentary on the harms caused by patent trolling (and bad patents), so that the full extent of the problem is presented to a wider audience.
If more YC partners were female, it could result in more women applicants because it might provide encouragement to potential female startup founders who are on the fence that successful entrepreneurship in a male-dominated startup environment is achievable--and ultimately worth striving for. Social science studies point to a gap between similarly-qualified men and women on their respective levels of self-confidence and risk tolerance. The implication of this gap is that while the gender makeup of YC partners wouldn't affect the decision of most men to apply, the presence of women could have the effect of encouraging women to apply by demonstrating what can be achieved.
Ultimately, this is a pipeline issue--there are just not enough women founders who go on to be angels and VCs.
PG is right that it's not common. The problem with this provision is that it would require you to divulge the confidential information/trade secrets of third parties (e.g., your new employer, your startup, etc.) after your employment with the Company ends. And in the software industry, 6 months is a long time. The year-long obligation to disclose patent applications is troubling as well, especially since patent applications are treated as non-public/confidential information by the US Patent & Trademark Office until they are either published (which is 18 months after filing), or issued (if they are not published by special request).
It seems to me that this Company has this unusual provision probably because it got burned by a former employee who left the Company, joined a competitor, and filed a patent application for an invention that was conceived while he was at the Company. In such situations, the Company should bring an action to contest the ownership of the patent application rather than asking its employees at the outset to execute an agreement to violate the confidentiality agreement of any future employer.
